But back to reality, will defaulting IE7's search box ruin google or anyone else?
Quite possibly, yes. And perhaps more importantly, it could result in the next Google just never entering the market at all.
This is the point (inasmuch as there is one) behind the US antitrust laws. And your country not having such a law is mostly irrelevant in this discussion, because it's not just a legal issue - it's also a moral issue. Should a company with a monopoly in one market be allowed to (ab)use their monopoly power to gain advantage in another market?
I'd say no, and I'd think it quite reasonable for a government to artificially limit the power of a monopolist. You may disagree, but - well, see below:).
What should microsoft do then? Remove the search bar, and be victims of criticism for having an outdated browser that doesn't even have a search bar?
You phrase the question as though a negative answer should be ludicruously obvious. But in fact the answer is yes - Microsoft should be compelled to remove any technology that defaults to a particular search engine (I'd also argue that they shouldn't even be allowed to provide a selection of search engines, as that could only lead to more abuse). You may not be aware, but one of the elements of the MS/Netscape antitrust thingy involved the question of whether MS should be forced to provide the Windows operating system without the IE web browser. As far as I recall, a significant part of the reason that that didn't happen was because MS managed to convince the judge that IE couldn't be removed without "crippling" the OS.
And so Microsoft successfully abused their OS monopoly to gain a web browser almost-monopoly, when faced with a dominant web browser company. Now they're trying to do exactly the same thing - abuse their OS monopoly to give them a massive advantage over Google in the search engine market.
Completely regardless of the law, do you think that's a moral thing to do? And if so, how would it be different from an elected government taking advantage of their position of power to take control of the media, cancel elections and rule indefinitely?
APPLE IS A MONOPOLY but you see, [...]
I don't think it'd be possible to argue this point with a straight face, so I'll be content to just say you're wrong here.:)
About six months ago I was able to open a bank account over the phone without any ID. So I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
LordLucless' point (in favour of a national ID card) was that "When I opened my first bank account, I had to provide a whole stack of different documents to prove my identity. It would be much more convenient to be able to do that with a single card." My point in response was that it'd be much more convenient (opening bank accounts) to not have to provide any documents at all - and why shouldn't we be able to do that?
If you live in a country where you can open an anonymous (or effectively anonymous, in that you don't have to provide proof of identity) bank account, good for you.
How exactly would you report the interest gained in an "anonymous bank account" without breaking the "anonymous" part?
For taxation purposes? Just the same way you'd report any other money earned for which there isn't necessarily any specific evidence of where it came from or how much it was.
I'm sure the government tax agency would be upset if its powers are limited in checking up on that, but too bad.
How would the bank know if someone can withdraw money from the account?
*shrug* Switzerland used to be famous for having anonymous bank accounts, didn't they? I'm sure there's a huge variety of ways to authenticate withdrawals. Is this even an issue?
Haven't you met any of the mad hippy cyclists or public transport users or the other segments of the population that don't need, don't want and don't possess a driver's license?
When I opened my first bank account, I had to provide a whole stack of different documents to prove my identity. It would be much more convenient to be able to do that with a single card.
And it'd be even more convenient to be able to open a bank account without having to provide any documentation at all!
Why on earth shouldn't we be able to have anonymous bank accounts? Seriously, why?
Why does carrying a card stop you from doing what you want to do? How does it stop you from being 'free'? What does it disable, prevent or otherwise hinder you from doing?
It's not so much just "carrying a card" that does anything. Hell, I could carry a playing card around in my pocket all the time, I don't think it'd affect my freedom one bit.
The problem is not just the card, though that's the most visible part of it. It's also the tracking database built around it, storing information about all the times you're forced to use the card - yes, the kind of thing you casually dismiss as "feeling watched". I dunno, maybe the idea makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.
The only answer that comes to my mind is "Crime". And I'm all for a government cutting that down.
The reason that that's the only answer coming to your mind is because you're not thinking hard enough. But don't feel bad. Here, have a biscuit. *throws FirienFirien a biscuit*
Having a tag on you doesn't infringe your civil liberties. It may make you feel watched - but that doesn't prevent your freedom.
Some time ago in parts of Australia, there was a (completely optional) proof-of-age card introduced by the government - I think it was called the "18+ card" or something like that. All it had on it was a photo, a name and a date of birth. What I found interesting was the motivation for introducing it - one of the reasons I heard was that girls didn't like showing a driver's license as proof-of-age at nightclubs, because then the bouncers could find out their home address.
Sometimes you just don't want people knowing things about you. And an identity card - especially one that stores useful personal information in a (totally crackable) "smart"-card chip - is so very nice and compact and easily stealable.
Noone is being forced to carry the card (at least noone is suggesting that yet - you will just need to possess this card to access certain government provided services.
That's true, I won't be forced to get the card or to carry it. Unless I want to be permitted to acquire the drug I need to stay alive. Hmm... decisions, decisions...
Actually, I may be wrong re: the above. I may still be able to get the drug without a medicare card, I'll just have to pay $700-ish instead of $25-ish per issue. Hmm again...:).
I mean we have driver's licenses which is basically a state issues ID card, and can be used for identification purposes in any state. [...] Even though we don't have a national ID card, we do need to carry identification around all of the time.
Only if you're driving a car:).
Then again maybe my perspective is different because I grew up on military bases all of my life. We always had to carry an ID card issues by the federal government at all times and had to show it just to enter a store on bases.
Yeah, your perspective is different. But it's not just that - I think that some people (possibly including you) are just psychologically ill-equipped to understand why others don't like their personal information being treated as state property. Hell, I don't even like strangers knowing my name (and certainly not my height or weight or address or date of birth) unless I specifically volunteer it. An equivalent concept online might be a picture - you slashdotters certainly don't need to know what I look like when reading this post, but some kind of name is helpful.
This Australian medicare-replacement "smart" card is complete bullshit. It'll just be (a) a tech-wankfest involving lots of money going to various "solution" providers, (b) a pretense of doing something about fraud, and (c) a way of sneaking in an ID card by the back door.
But the card won't accomplish anything that couldn't have been accomplished within the old system. What it will provide, however, is a lot of scope for the state to incrementally request/demand more information. Fingerprints are a good start, but the ultimate goal will always be to have every citizen's DNA in a nice big database.
After all, that'll make it easier to catch criminals and terrorists and bad people of all types! And only the bad people wouldn't want a system like that.
Please note that Swiss ID cards do not have biometric nonsense attached to them. They are just ID cards. ID cards are useful.
How useful are they if you (a) don't care about getting into pubs/clubs, or (b) are well past the age where anyone could think you underage?:)
Answer to mostly-rhetorical question - not very, except when it comes to doing other things for which you shouldn't have to "prove" an age/identity anyway. But when you've grown up in a society with rules, most people adapt to the rules - and come to think of them as perfectly reasonable and normal. Even if they make little or no sense.
From that perspective, I guess you could see an ID card as "useful", as it helps you to more easily negotiate your way through your society's (mostly, if not entirely) unnecessary rules.
Still, those people who do murder someone should be jailed and it costs a lot of money. Thus, cost can't be a factor in prison sentences. If not cost, then what?
Cost of enforcement/imprisonment is an indirect factor in crime laws/sentencing, but doesn't play as much of a role as perhaps it should (except at the very low end, where a police officer may sometimes choose to give someone a warning rather than have them formally charged).
Even for a crime as bad as murder, if there were too many such crimes, the criminal justice system wouldn't be able to cope. However, the problem wouldn't manifest itself as murderers being released because there's no court time until 2015 or because holding cells are about 500% full - it'd show up much more simply as the police just not having the resources to even investigate most of those crimes anymore. So the vast majority of such crimes would simply be ignored.
But perhaps every so often one would be picked - the criminal caught, charged, convicted and sentenced - to *ahem* "Send A Message".
And those the message is aimed at will grin and say (Homer-style) "I like those odds."
Justice. It is why this law in Germany is so bad - because it is not just.
Those who actually get punished under this law will certainly have good reason to feel a little pissed off, especially as each of them will probably know many people who've committed the same "crime" but walk around free. And the reason they walk around free is because the government doesn't have the resources even to investigate all of them, let alone imprison them.
I'd like the first person imprisoned under this law to be a son/daughter of one of the politicians that voted for it. In fact, I think that's where all the available police resources should be focussed.:)
I'm not entirely sure, but I think you misread me - I was only referring to the HoL in my comment, not the HoC. And I agree, democracy is overrated. And it's also underrated. And sometimes when people think they're criticising democracy, they need to remember to criticise it relative to the alternatives.
Nothing's guaranteed, sure. But if you aim to maximise the chances of getting a stable and relatively sane government, and minimise the chances of a incompetent or oppressive government staying in power for too long, you're doing pretty well. And I think democracy is the least risky (ie. least chance of a worst-case outcome, ie. dictactorship and/or civil war) way to achieve that. But another important part of that is a worthwhile independent media... (which is where the US has been having some trouble recently)... and a worthwhile opposition (which is where the UK has been having some trouble recently).
But don't feel too bad, guys. It could be worse. You could have a Singapore-style trifecta - a totally corrupt government, a completely lapdog media and no opposition to speak of. It's places like that that really give democracy a bad name.
Having an elected upper house somewhat defeats the point of having one at all. There is a huge benefit to having an unelected one.
You've been sculling the kool-aid again:).
It may help if I clarify that I'm not necessarily arguing against the people in the current House of Lords. I'm sure there's a solid proportion of fundamentally decent and principled people in there - most of whom, having been brought up wealthy and with a decent education and thoroughly indoctrinated in certain kinds of ethical responsibilities, probably take their role very conscientiously (for the most part).
But - and this is the key thing - who or what are the HoL members representing? Who or what are they accountable to? As far as I can tell, nobody and nothing. They have no moral justification for the power and influence they wield.
A High Court or Supreme Court, by comparison, is indirectly elected (sort of:)) and has a different kind of power to kill legislation - but (at least in theory) they serve the law. And in sane countries they serve for limited terms.
Britain is a Parlimentary System, and as such Tony Blair is elected, in truth, only by the members of his particular party.
Tony Blair is the legitimately elected MP representing Sedgefield. And he's also the legitimately elected leader of the Labour Party, as voted for by the MPs of that party. And you could quite reasonably argue that, as the leader and the "face" of Labour, his party's overall victory in the last three general elections is an additional (indirect) endorsement by British voters.
None of this changes the fact that he's a contemptible manipulative lying prat with little or no respect for civil liberties or international law - but apparently that is what the majority of the British voters want as their political leader. So be it.
He doesn't even need to have been a Member of Parliment.
The British Prime Minister doesn't even need to be an MP? Okay, I know the Brits don't have an official constitution and so the rules on this may not be carved in stone, but that still seems kind of unlikely. Have you got a source for this?
You see, the thing is, the Lords (at the moment) have a birth right to be there. They can say whatever they want without fear of parliamentary whips putting pressure on them to to stop conflicting with the current party's views, without fear of being kicked out, and without fear of losing their next election. That's why they're a good thing, because they have the chance to oppose laws even when the majority of parliament is for them.
*blink* What the.... fuck?
*stares at user24 like the museum piece he/she apparently is*
If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one. It should be elected in a different way to the House of Commons, in a way that enables greater influence by minor parties and reduces the chance of the government holding an outright majority, but it should be elected.
Seriously, people like you scare me. Just because the HoL are doing the right thing at the moment in resisting some (and only some) of the more extreme parts of Blair's totalitarian ideology, that's no reason to presume that the HoL themselves are the right thing. They're just not. Unelected, unrepresentative, unremovable.
What is Postgresql missing that Oracle has? What does Oracle have that Postgres is missing?
Er....:-)
Most of the other responses have covered what I presume you meant to ask:) pretty well, but there's one feature of PostgreSQL that I particularly like (and didn't see mentioned) - the range of stored-procedure programming languages available. The choices include PL/PgSQL, PL/Java, PL/Perl, plPHP, PL/Python, PL/R (I used this in one project solely for its handy median function), PL/Ruby, PL/sh, and PL/Tcl... and of course C.
Whether this is a particularly significant feature is a different question, and depends a lot on how you like to use (or not use) stored procedures in your database design(s).
I'm afraid we may just have to agree to disagree. I am not scared of the police investigating me [...]
I think we probably will have to agree to disagree:). My theory is that there are some people that (I know not why) just really don't care about their personal privacy. Or maybe they've convinced themselves they don't care because it's easier on their view of the world. After all, if you did object to government/industry (ab)using your personal/private information without your permission... but they kept on doing it and there was no way you could (legally) stop them... that could be kind of upsetting. So it's much better to tell yourself that you don't mind.;-)
But more seriously, a lot of people are like you - they really don't care at all about privacy. Which is really fine, good for them (and you). The only thing I'd politely request (and I'm absolutely 100% certain you'll ignore) is that you completely stay out of all privacy-related discussions. As you don't care about privacy, it's not something you should be participating in. Leave it to the minority(?) of us who do care.
I think there is a difference between being forced to divulge my entire sexual history to my boss and having relavent emails involving criminal activity pulled out of some archives to be used against me in court.
There is a difference, yes (eg. what if there wasn't any criminal activity - and even if there was, they still have to examine everything before they decide which emails they want to cherry-pick as evidence) - but what you need to remember is that it's not just their boss that most people are worried about. Often it's their family, friends, co-workers, casual social acquaintances. The negative consequences of, for example, being dragged out of the closet as homosexual... well, the consequences to your social relationships can still be damaging, even though you may not suffer any direct financial injury.
And when emails, especially deleted emails, are revealed in court and added to a public record - well, this is the situation. Your boss may not know your entire sexual history, but even a small part can be enough. All it needs is for one of your cow-orkers to read through the court records, and suddenly everyone knows. And suddenly that promotion you were expecting goes to someone else, your project gets "reorganised", some of your competent underlings get moved to another department... hmmm. There's a lot of ways to make you suffer without giving solid grounds for a lawsuit (though I approve of your willingness to use the lawsuit - most people just give up when they realise it'll bankrupt them and their chances of winning are quite small).
And even in the case where there really is no chance of you being "punished" for a revealed secret... for many people (perhaps not you) it's just nice to keep some things private. Private to themselves, between them and their partner... it's part of maintaining a sense of self. If some judge in a courtroom uses his/her power to forcibly expose that thing (without even realising it matters to you), you can feel quite violated. It's not a nice feeling.
But lucky you, you'll never have to worry about that sort of thing... as you don't care about privacy.:)
Ye gods. Well, I guess that goes to show - people in power will abuse that power (inside and outside the military). Just that bureaucracies have no concept of right or wrong, only of power. And the military bureaucracy have way too much power they can abuse (with too few checks on that power).
I read stories like this, it really makes me wonder why people voluntarily sign on to the military. Piss-poor pay, no rights at all, your "contract" can be changed at any time in any way by your superiors (always to their benefit)... non-trivial risk of death/injury (or is that a positive?:-)).
Pity your friend didn't just photograph himself torturing a few civilians (or raping a fellow soldier). He wouldn't have had any trouble then *wry grin*.
MySQL does have referential integrity - if you use the right table type. The default MySQL table type, which I think is called MyISAM, doesn't have RI - but there's an alternative table type called InnoDB, which does.
I think there are other MySQL table types as well, with different performance characteristics and tradeoffs. The MyISAM table type is (as far as I understand) well suited to very frequent reads and infrequent writes, performing very well for that sort of usage pattern - which, coincidentally, matches up well with the needs of most websites.
PostgreSQL, by contrast, doesn't have a choice in table types. Not that table-type choice is necessarily a good (or bad) thing.
MySQL 5 is actually not too bad - I can tolerate it:) - but I still much prefer PostgreSQL (for all sorts of reasons).
Also, I don't have to worry about backing up these fancy-schmancy "MP3s" in the case of a hard disk failure.
D'oh! s/these fancy-schmancy "MP3s"/my CDs/.
I got so tangled up in the pisstake that I lost track of what I was mocking:) - though, strangely enough, I think the meaning of the phrase still works, even though it doesn't directly map onto rtconner's comment any more.
The funny thing of course is that it's much much harder to backup physical books or CDs than it is to backup books/music in electronic form. And physical books/CDs get lost or stolen or damaged (well, usually lost:)) just as much (if not more) than hard disks fail.
Absolutely. CDs are simple. You take them out of the case and put them into the CD player. Easy. No reboots, configuration, downloads or other crap. Also, I don't have to worry about backing up these fancy-schmancy "MP3s" in the case of a hard disk failure.
I can't think why anyone would find any purpose in having their hundreds (or possibly thousands) of CDs in an electronic form that they can backup onto many computers and use from a single tiny pocket-sized device. What possible advantage could that have, aside from extraordinary convenience, catalogueability, transportability, searchability, playlistability, usability and the ease of online purchasing (...-ability:-))?
Let me just reassure you that there's no magical evil monkey that makes you delete the ebook files from your computer after you've installed them onto your handheld. You don't have to lose your entire ebook library when you lose your reader - any more than you have to lose all your MP3s when you lose your ipod.
I can leave a book on a table at work and not worry about it being stolen [...] However an ebook reader worth hundreds of pounds? Gone before you've turned your back.
So you put the ebook reader in your pocket and walk off with it. You probably never considered doing that with a physical book because, well, you can't. You're reaching a bit here.
I don't need to carry an entire library with me,
No, you don't. You just need to carry the book that you're reading at the moment. Or maybe that other one you started a few days ago. Or perhaps you'd prefer to space out on some lightweight Harry Potter or some amusing Pratchett. Or maybe read a bit more of one of those interesting programminglanguagebooks. So... how many books are we carrying now?:)
It's a matter of perspective. Your argument that you "don't need to carry an entire library around with you" could equally well be used against using an ipod to carry around most (if not all) of your music library. After all, you could just take along with you the specific CDs you'd like to listen to... except you might change your mind... and it does take a bit of space to carry even one CD...:) In the end, it's just hella convenient to be able to take one compact device with you and have access to all your content.
Backlit displays? Reading in the dark is bad for your eyes,
The whole point of backlit displays is that you have light. And it's convenient light - just enough to read comfortably, while not enough to, for example, wake up a sleeping partner.
Search? No need for it.
Actually, I sort of agree with you here. I hardly ever use the searchability of ebooks. But "hardly ever" is not "never", and I certainly concede that different people may find it much more useful. And I should also point out that once you actually can search your texts (and you get used to that ability) you may change your tune.
Or you may not:). Anyway, this is a fairly minor ebook advantage IMO.
Tiny display? No thanks.
*shrug* Depends a lot on your eyes here. The display/resolution on most modern Palms or PocketPCs are pretty damn good these days, and you can use quite nice larger fonts if you wish. I'd have been a bit more hesistant about recommending the older Palm V generation, but the modern ones are fine. And on a related note, the advantage of having a small display is that you can have a small device - that you can fit in your pocket or easily hold/control in one hand.
Having to wrestle with an interface? No thanks.
*laugh* Actually, this (IMO) is one of the points for which ebooks (on handhelds) not only win, but piss all over physical books. Turning ebook "pages" is one screen-tap or button-press - or if you prefer (I don't) you can even have the text autoscroll so you can just lie back and read:). Physical books, by comparison - page turning. Sigh. I hate turning pages, especially when I'm reading in bed. And anything larger than a small paperback just takes up too much space and is awkward to read in a comfortable position.
And finally, it's kind of nice to be able to go book-shopping from your computer at midnight - and fifteen minutes later be in bed reading a shiny new book. The biggest downside is still that the available range is limited, but while it could be better, it's Good Enough(tm) for now.
whereas in our Playstation 2 games development the only thing we can't do with the Linux dev kits is gain full access to the sound programming (there's a good reason for it).
Like Jerf, I'm also curious about this "good reason". Is it a technical reason or a financial reason or a Sony-must-protect-trade-secrets-that-aren't reason...?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Quite possibly, yes. And perhaps more importantly, it could result in the next Google just never entering the market at all.
This is the point (inasmuch as there is one) behind the US antitrust laws. And your country not having such a law is mostly irrelevant in this discussion, because it's not just a legal issue - it's also a moral issue. Should a company with a monopoly in one market be allowed to (ab)use their monopoly power to gain advantage in another market?
I'd say no, and I'd think it quite reasonable for a government to artificially limit the power of a monopolist. You may disagree, but - well, see below :).
You phrase the question as though a negative answer should be ludicruously obvious. But in fact the answer is yes - Microsoft should be compelled to remove any technology that defaults to a particular search engine (I'd also argue that they shouldn't even be allowed to provide a selection of search engines, as that could only lead to more abuse). You may not be aware, but one of the elements of the MS/Netscape antitrust thingy involved the question of whether MS should be forced to provide the Windows operating system without the IE web browser. As far as I recall, a significant part of the reason that that didn't happen was because MS managed to convince the judge that IE couldn't be removed without "crippling" the OS.
And so Microsoft successfully abused their OS monopoly to gain a web browser almost-monopoly, when faced with a dominant web browser company. Now they're trying to do exactly the same thing - abuse their OS monopoly to give them a massive advantage over Google in the search engine market.
Completely regardless of the law, do you think that's a moral thing to do? And if so, how would it be different from an elected government taking advantage of their position of power to take control of the media, cancel elections and rule indefinitely?
I don't think it'd be possible to argue this point with a straight face, so I'll be content to just say you're wrong here. :)
LordLucless' point (in favour of a national ID card) was that "When I opened my first bank account, I had to provide a whole stack of different documents to prove my identity. It would be much more convenient to be able to do that with a single card." My point in response was that it'd be much more convenient (opening bank accounts) to not have to provide any documents at all - and why shouldn't we be able to do that?
If you live in a country where you can open an anonymous (or effectively anonymous, in that you don't have to provide proof of identity) bank account, good for you.
For taxation purposes? Just the same way you'd report any other money earned for which there isn't necessarily any specific evidence of where it came from or how much it was. I'm sure the government tax agency would be upset if its powers are limited in checking up on that, but too bad.
*shrug* Switzerland used to be famous for having anonymous bank accounts, didn't they? I'm sure there's a huge variety of ways to authenticate withdrawals. Is this even an issue?
Hey presto, they'd also cost you a great deal less if you didn't bother trying to catch/arrest/deport them. Strange that.
Except for the people that don't.
Haven't you met any of the mad hippy cyclists or public transport users or the other segments of the population that don't need, don't want and don't possess a driver's license?
And it'd be even more convenient to be able to open a bank account without having to provide any documentation at all!
Why on earth shouldn't we be able to have anonymous bank accounts? Seriously, why?
It's not so much just "carrying a card" that does anything. Hell, I could carry a playing card around in my pocket all the time, I don't think it'd affect my freedom one bit.
The problem is not just the card, though that's the most visible part of it. It's also the tracking database built around it, storing information about all the times you're forced to use the card - yes, the kind of thing you casually dismiss as "feeling watched". I dunno, maybe the idea makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.
The reason that that's the only answer coming to your mind is because you're not thinking hard enough. But don't feel bad. Here, have a biscuit. *throws FirienFirien a biscuit*
Some time ago in parts of Australia, there was a (completely optional) proof-of-age card introduced by the government - I think it was called the "18+ card" or something like that. All it had on it was a photo, a name and a date of birth. What I found interesting was the motivation for introducing it - one of the reasons I heard was that girls didn't like showing a driver's license as proof-of-age at nightclubs, because then the bouncers could find out their home address.
Sometimes you just don't want people knowing things about you. And an identity card - especially one that stores useful personal information in a (totally crackable) "smart"-card chip - is so very nice and compact and easily stealable.
That's true, I won't be forced to get the card or to carry it. Unless I want to be permitted to acquire the drug I need to stay alive. Hmm... decisions, decisions...
Actually, I may be wrong re: the above. I may still be able to get the drug without a medicare card, I'll just have to pay $700-ish instead of $25-ish per issue. Hmm again... :).
Only if you're driving a car :).
Yeah, your perspective is different. But it's not just that - I think that some people (possibly including you) are just psychologically ill-equipped to understand why others don't like their personal information being treated as state property. Hell, I don't even like strangers knowing my name (and certainly not my height or weight or address or date of birth) unless I specifically volunteer it. An equivalent concept online might be a picture - you slashdotters certainly don't need to know what I look like when reading this post, but some kind of name is helpful.
This Australian medicare-replacement "smart" card is complete bullshit. It'll just be (a) a tech-wankfest involving lots of money going to various "solution" providers, (b) a pretense of doing something about fraud, and (c) a way of sneaking in an ID card by the back door.
But the card won't accomplish anything that couldn't have been accomplished within the old system. What it will provide, however, is a lot of scope for the state to incrementally request/demand more information. Fingerprints are a good start, but the ultimate goal will always be to have every citizen's DNA in a nice big database.
After all, that'll make it easier to catch criminals and terrorists and bad people of all types! And only the bad people wouldn't want a system like that.
How useful are they if you (a) don't care about getting into pubs/clubs, or (b) are well past the age where anyone could think you underage? :)
Answer to mostly-rhetorical question - not very, except when it comes to doing other things for which you shouldn't have to "prove" an age/identity anyway. But when you've grown up in a society with rules, most people adapt to the rules - and come to think of them as perfectly reasonable and normal. Even if they make little or no sense.
From that perspective, I guess you could see an ID card as "useful", as it helps you to more easily negotiate your way through your society's (mostly, if not entirely) unnecessary rules.
Cost of enforcement/imprisonment is an indirect factor in crime laws/sentencing, but doesn't play as much of a role as perhaps it should (except at the very low end, where a police officer may sometimes choose to give someone a warning rather than have them formally charged).
Even for a crime as bad as murder, if there were too many such crimes, the criminal justice system wouldn't be able to cope. However, the problem wouldn't manifest itself as murderers being released because there's no court time until 2015 or because holding cells are about 500% full - it'd show up much more simply as the police just not having the resources to even investigate most of those crimes anymore. So the vast majority of such crimes would simply be ignored.
But perhaps every so often one would be picked - the criminal caught, charged, convicted and sentenced - to *ahem* "Send A Message".
And those the message is aimed at will grin and say (Homer-style) "I like those odds."
Those who actually get punished under this law will certainly have good reason to feel a little pissed off, especially as each of them will probably know many people who've committed the same "crime" but walk around free. And the reason they walk around free is because the government doesn't have the resources even to investigate all of them, let alone imprison them.
I'd like the first person imprisoned under this law to be a son/daughter of one of the politicians that voted for it. In fact, I think that's where all the available police resources should be focussed. :)
I'm not entirely sure, but I think you misread me - I was only referring to the HoL in my comment, not the HoC. And I agree, democracy is overrated. And it's also underrated. And sometimes when people think they're criticising democracy, they need to remember to criticise it relative to the alternatives.
Nothing's guaranteed, sure. But if you aim to maximise the chances of getting a stable and relatively sane government, and minimise the chances of a incompetent or oppressive government staying in power for too long, you're doing pretty well. And I think democracy is the least risky (ie. least chance of a worst-case outcome, ie. dictactorship and/or civil war) way to achieve that. But another important part of that is a worthwhile independent media... (which is where the US has been having some trouble recently)... and a worthwhile opposition (which is where the UK has been having some trouble recently).
But don't feel too bad, guys. It could be worse. You could have a Singapore-style trifecta - a totally corrupt government, a completely lapdog media and no opposition to speak of. It's places like that that really give democracy a bad name.
You've been sculling the kool-aid again :).
It may help if I clarify that I'm not necessarily arguing against the people in the current House of Lords. I'm sure there's a solid proportion of fundamentally decent and principled people in there - most of whom, having been brought up wealthy and with a decent education and thoroughly indoctrinated in certain kinds of ethical responsibilities, probably take their role very conscientiously (for the most part).
But - and this is the key thing - who or what are the HoL members representing? Who or what are they accountable to? As far as I can tell, nobody and nothing. They have no moral justification for the power and influence they wield.
A High Court or Supreme Court, by comparison, is indirectly elected (sort of :)) and has a different kind of power to kill legislation - but (at least in theory) they serve the law. And in sane countries they serve for limited terms.
Tony Blair is the legitimately elected MP representing Sedgefield. And he's also the legitimately elected leader of the Labour Party, as voted for by the MPs of that party. And you could quite reasonably argue that, as the leader and the "face" of Labour, his party's overall victory in the last three general elections is an additional (indirect) endorsement by British voters.
None of this changes the fact that he's a contemptible manipulative lying prat with little or no respect for civil liberties or international law - but apparently that is what the majority of the British voters want as their political leader. So be it.
The British Prime Minister doesn't even need to be an MP? Okay, I know the Brits don't have an official constitution and so the rules on this may not be carved in stone, but that still seems kind of unlikely. Have you got a source for this?
*blink* What the.... fuck?
*stares at user24 like the museum piece he/she apparently is*
If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one. It should be elected in a different way to the House of Commons, in a way that enables greater influence by minor parties and reduces the chance of the government holding an outright majority, but it should be elected.
Seriously, people like you scare me. Just because the HoL are doing the right thing at the moment in resisting some (and only some) of the more extreme parts of Blair's totalitarian ideology, that's no reason to presume that the HoL themselves are the right thing. They're just not. Unelected, unrepresentative, unremovable.
Er.... :-)
Most of the other responses have covered what I presume you meant to ask :) pretty well, but there's one feature of PostgreSQL that I particularly like (and didn't see mentioned) - the range of stored-procedure programming languages available. The choices include PL/PgSQL, PL/Java, PL/Perl, plPHP, PL/Python, PL/R (I used this in one project solely for its handy median function), PL/Ruby, PL/sh, and PL/Tcl... and of course C.
Whether this is a particularly significant feature is a different question, and depends a lot on how you like to use (or not use) stored procedures in your database design(s).
I'm not sure why, but I feel the need to say something on this thread. Er... something.
But for the love of Me, why is the parent post being modded redundant? It's a fair question (and a fantastic subject :-)).
I think we probably will have to agree to disagree :). My theory is that there are some people that (I know not why) just really don't care about their personal privacy. Or maybe they've convinced themselves they don't care because it's easier on their view of the world. After all, if you did object to government/industry (ab)using your personal/private information without your permission... but they kept on doing it and there was no way you could (legally) stop them... that could be kind of upsetting. So it's much better to tell yourself that you don't mind. ;-)
But more seriously, a lot of people are like you - they really don't care at all about privacy. Which is really fine, good for them (and you). The only thing I'd politely request (and I'm absolutely 100% certain you'll ignore) is that you completely stay out of all privacy-related discussions. As you don't care about privacy, it's not something you should be participating in. Leave it to the minority(?) of us who do care.
There is a difference, yes (eg. what if there wasn't any criminal activity - and even if there was, they still have to examine everything before they decide which emails they want to cherry-pick as evidence) - but what you need to remember is that it's not just their boss that most people are worried about. Often it's their family, friends, co-workers, casual social acquaintances. The negative consequences of, for example, being dragged out of the closet as homosexual... well, the consequences to your social relationships can still be damaging, even though you may not suffer any direct financial injury.
And when emails, especially deleted emails, are revealed in court and added to a public record - well, this is the situation. Your boss may not know your entire sexual history, but even a small part can be enough. All it needs is for one of your cow-orkers to read through the court records, and suddenly everyone knows. And suddenly that promotion you were expecting goes to someone else, your project gets "reorganised", some of your competent underlings get moved to another department... hmmm. There's a lot of ways to make you suffer without giving solid grounds for a lawsuit (though I approve of your willingness to use the lawsuit - most people just give up when they realise it'll bankrupt them and their chances of winning are quite small).
And even in the case where there really is no chance of you being "punished" for a revealed secret... for many people (perhaps not you) it's just nice to keep some things private. Private to themselves, between them and their partner... it's part of maintaining a sense of self. If some judge in a courtroom uses his/her power to forcibly expose that thing (without even realising it matters to you), you can feel quite violated. It's not a nice feeling.
But lucky you, you'll never have to worry about that sort of thing... as you don't care about privacy. :)
Actually, I read MrWa's message as taking the piss out of Google - and, incidentally, Slashdot. And I read your response as... *whoosh*. :-)
Ye gods. Well, I guess that goes to show - people in power will abuse that power (inside and outside the military). Just that bureaucracies have no concept of right or wrong, only of power. And the military bureaucracy have way too much power they can abuse (with too few checks on that power).
I read stories like this, it really makes me wonder why people voluntarily sign on to the military. Piss-poor pay, no rights at all, your "contract" can be changed at any time in any way by your superiors (always to their benefit)... non-trivial risk of death/injury (or is that a positive? :-)).
Pity your friend didn't just photograph himself torturing a few civilians (or raping a fellow soldier). He wouldn't have had any trouble then *wry grin*.
MySQL does have referential integrity - if you use the right table type. The default MySQL table type, which I think is called MyISAM, doesn't have RI - but there's an alternative table type called InnoDB, which does.
I think there are other MySQL table types as well, with different performance characteristics and tradeoffs. The MyISAM table type is (as far as I understand) well suited to very frequent reads and infrequent writes, performing very well for that sort of usage pattern - which, coincidentally, matches up well with the needs of most websites.
PostgreSQL, by contrast, doesn't have a choice in table types. Not that table-type choice is necessarily a good (or bad) thing.
MySQL 5 is actually not too bad - I can tolerate it :) - but I still much prefer PostgreSQL (for all sorts of reasons).
D'oh! s/these fancy-schmancy "MP3s"/my CDs/.
I got so tangled up in the pisstake that I lost track of what I was mocking :) - though, strangely enough, I think the meaning of the phrase still works, even though it doesn't directly map onto rtconner's comment any more.
The funny thing of course is that it's much much harder to backup physical books or CDs than it is to backup books/music in electronic form. And physical books/CDs get lost or stolen or damaged (well, usually lost :)) just as much (if not more) than hard disks fail.
Absolutely. CDs are simple. You take them out of the case and put them into the CD player. Easy. No reboots, configuration, downloads or other crap. Also, I don't have to worry about backing up these fancy-schmancy "MP3s" in the case of a hard disk failure.
I can't think why anyone would find any purpose in having their hundreds (or possibly thousands) of CDs in an electronic form that they can backup onto many computers and use from a single tiny pocket-sized device. What possible advantage could that have, aside from extraordinary convenience, catalogueability, transportability, searchability, playlistability, usability and the ease of online purchasing (...-ability :-))?
*grin*
Let me just reassure you that there's no magical evil monkey that makes you delete the ebook files from your computer after you've installed them onto your handheld. You don't have to lose your entire ebook library when you lose your reader - any more than you have to lose all your MP3s when you lose your ipod.
So you put the ebook reader in your pocket and walk off with it. You probably never considered doing that with a physical book because, well, you can't. You're reaching a bit here.
No, you don't. You just need to carry the book that you're reading at the moment. Or maybe that other one you started a few days ago. Or perhaps you'd prefer to space out on some lightweight Harry Potter or some amusing Pratchett. Or maybe read a bit more of one of those interesting programming language books. So... how many books are we carrying now? :)
It's a matter of perspective. Your argument that you "don't need to carry an entire library around with you" could equally well be used against using an ipod to carry around most (if not all) of your music library. After all, you could just take along with you the specific CDs you'd like to listen to... except you might change your mind... and it does take a bit of space to carry even one CD... :) In the end, it's just hella convenient to be able to take one compact device with you and have access to all your content.
The whole point of backlit displays is that you have light. And it's convenient light - just enough to read comfortably, while not enough to, for example, wake up a sleeping partner.
Actually, I sort of agree with you here. I hardly ever use the searchability of ebooks. But "hardly ever" is not "never", and I certainly concede that different people may find it much more useful. And I should also point out that once you actually can search your texts (and you get used to that ability) you may change your tune.
Or you may not :). Anyway, this is a fairly minor ebook advantage IMO.
*shrug* Depends a lot on your eyes here. The display/resolution on most modern Palms or PocketPCs are pretty damn good these days, and you can use quite nice larger fonts if you wish. I'd have been a bit more hesistant about recommending the older Palm V generation, but the modern ones are fine. And on a related note, the advantage of having a small display is that you can have a small device - that you can fit in your pocket or easily hold/control in one hand.
*laugh* Actually, this (IMO) is one of the points for which ebooks (on handhelds) not only win, but piss all over physical books. Turning ebook "pages" is one screen-tap or button-press - or if you prefer (I don't) you can even have the text autoscroll so you can just lie back and read :). Physical books, by comparison - page turning. Sigh. I hate turning pages, especially when I'm reading in bed. And anything larger than a small paperback just takes up too much space and is awkward to read in a comfortable position.
And finally, it's kind of nice to be able to go book-shopping from your computer at midnight - and fifteen minutes later be in bed reading a shiny new book. The biggest downside is still that the available range is limited, but while it could be better, it's Good Enough(tm) for now.
Like Jerf, I'm also curious about this "good reason". Is it a technical reason or a financial reason or a Sony-must-protect-trade-secrets-that-aren't reason...? :)